19
   

Another Devastating School Shooting: Uvalde, Texas

 
 
Glennn
 
  -2  
Mon 4 Jul, 2022 07:56 am
@Brandon9000,
It's called a swarm tactic. All you need to do is focus on just one. The others can wait.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jul, 2022 12:19 pm
24 people hospitalised and six killed in an ongoing shooting in Chicago.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Mon 4 Jul, 2022 10:13 pm
@izzythepush,
Now it's 36 people in the hospital and so far the death toll hasn't risen. I listened to some late news tonight and heard the whole fiasco described like uncles talking about their nephew or nieces little league game, only with less energy. It made me weep to think that fellow citizens can hear about their neighbors or relatives deaths discussed as if it's a normal thing. Then it occurred to me, it is a normal thing now, because we respect stupid ideas without regard for our personal safety and survival. God help us.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 4 Jul, 2022 11:23 pm
@glitterbag,
The pictures were surreal, people didn't know what was happening.

There were people running in panic while the band was still playing.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Thu 7 Jul, 2022 05:10 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
It's called a swarm tactic. All you need to do is focus on just one. The others can wait.

Yeah, it's what they've always done here. Liberals will choose an unfair advantage over a fair fight every time. I note that engineer has wimped out. I wonder how long I should wait before I declare victory and thrash the next one.
hightor
 
  2  
Thu 7 Jul, 2022 05:30 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Yeah, it's what they've always done here.


That's overly dramatic. The "they" makes you sound paranoid. It's an open forum, and even when a reply is directed to one person there's nothing to prevent others from commenting. And what "unfair advantage" is there when you can simply put people on "Ignore" and their replies become invisible? What on earth is a "fair fight" between people hiding behind screen names (with the exception of Frank and David) and posting verbal responses? Do you really take it that seriously?

Quote:
I note that engineer has wimped out.

Or maybe he simply didn't want to rile you up any further since you're so sensitive about being outnumbered.

Quote:
I wonder how long I should wait before I declare victory and thrash the next one.

Victory???

Thrash the next one???

We're simply airing differences of opinion, voicing disagreements, and challenging suppositions. It's not physical combat.

It's not anyone's fault that so many of the people who might have agreed with you no longer post here. Do you really need numbers of like-minded people for moral support or something? I've always thought your better posts were able to stand on their own.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Thu 7 Jul, 2022 06:34 am
@Brandon9000,
That's why you need a gun, it's the only way you can "win"an argument.

If you feel overwhelmed try imagining how the hundreds of children butchered by the NRA felt.

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 09:55 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Here's a scenario focused on ending the problem of gun violence in the USA:

No such problem exists. Your scenario is designed only to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

Progressives need to start having fun some other way besides hurting innocent people.


hightor wrote:
The country goes through a number of election cycles and a strong liberal House and Senate are in office with a liberal Democrat as president. The 6-3 conservative/liberal division on the Supreme Court is replaced with a 6-3 liberal/conservative mix under Chief Justice Sotomayor. Several states pass restrictive gun laws with the idea that they will be taken to court. The suit makes its way through the system and ends up in the Supreme Court.
The justices reinterpret the 2nd Amendment, reestablishing the former prevailing understanding that the Constitution does not grant an individual right to bear arms,

So in other words, progressives hate our freedom and mean to violate our civil liberties if we vote for them.

There was never any such former prevailing understanding. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Further, this talk of granting rights is ignorant. The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.


hightor wrote:
as the amendment clearly mentions a "militia".

Wrong. The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.


hightor wrote:
Military style weapons are outlawed for civilian ownership and use.

A pointless violation of our civil liberties. Existing laws have prevented legally-owned military weapons from ever being used to commit a crime in the past 90 years.


hightor wrote:
No military look-alikes will be allowed, and the selection of available firearms will be reduced to a few different hunting and target rifles, some shotguns, and revolvers chambered for 38 Special.
Anyone who really wanted to acquire proficiency on a military-styled weapon would simply sign up for active duty in the armed forces or National Guard (militia). Illegal weapons would be confiscated if carried beyond the front door of one's home. The ammunition commonly associated with military-styled weapons would be unavailable to civilians.
You get the picture.

I sure do. You think it is fun to violate people's civil liberties.

Too bad. Go find a new hobby.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 09:56 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:
DNA test had to be done on these precious children because they were blown apart by an assault riffle.

That is incorrect. No assault rifle has ever been used in a school shooting.


jcboy wrote:
We're a pretty screwed up country for allowing such weapons on the street.

Nonsense. Existing regulations have proven sufficient to prevent any assault rifle that is legally owned by civilians from ever being used to commit a crime.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 09:57 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
This goes beyond any rights even if you support the right to bare arms -- there is no reason anyone needs an assault weapon.

We're a free country. We don't have to convince anyone that we need a gun before we are allowed to have it.

And actually it doesn't go beyond rights. There is a good case to be made that we do in fact have the right to have them.


Linkat wrote:
My husband is a marine and he says there is no reason for this. What the heck is this sort of weapon for but killing and doing the most possible damage in as short amount of time as is possible. It is not for hunting? Or even if you wanted personal protection.

Note that no assault rifle that is or was legally owned by civilians has ever been used to commit a crime in America.

Such guns are far from being a problem.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 09:58 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Yeah. I own more than one handgun, but no way could I justify assault weapons.

I can using the Second Amendment. What sort of weapon do you think would be needed to repel a foreign invasion?

I can also justify them by pointing out that existing regulations are clearly sufficient to prevent them from ever being used to commit a crime.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 09:59 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
I'm so thankful that oralloy isn't here.

It's a lot easier for you to lie about guns when no one challenges your lies.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:25 pm
@Rebelofnj,
Rebelofnj wrote:
I checked those forums O linked to in his profile, to see if he is saying anything constructive at all about the recent shooting(s).
Not at all. It is mostly "protect civil liberties (AKA gun rights only)", "progressives are evil", "everything I say is the truth", "NRA has final say on gun control", and absolutely zero empathy towards the victims.

Debunking progressive lies is actually quite constructive.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:27 pm
@hightor,
Everytown for Gun Safety wrote:
When assault weapons are used in a mass shooting, 6x as many people are shot.

Everytown dishonestly skipped over the fact that no assault weapon that is or was legally owned by civilians has ever been used to commit a crime in America.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:28 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
But you left out the context, the part about the militia.

That is because the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.


hightor wrote:
"Bearing arms" is a military reference.

You scored an own goal there. That only means that it is military weapons that everybody has the right to have.


hightor wrote:
The idea was that we'd have no standing army, and that trained militia members would have their weapons at home ready to respond when necessary. Given the clausal construction of the amendment, courts can interpret those words in more than one way — and already have.

Interpretations that are contrary to the Constitution, are illegitimate.


hightor wrote:
Excluding the military and a few law enforcement agencies there aren't really that many government officials who carry weapons.

A few law enforcement agencies??

How about every active law enforcement officer in the entire nation?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
montereyjack wrote:
read the rest of the amendment, which all you gun loonies conveniently ignore.

Nonsense. We don't ignore it. We'd be happy to have the courts start enforcing the entire Second Amendment.


montereyjack wrote:
the 2nda is clearly about well-regulated militias.

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.


montereyjack wrote:
tnhey were not, repeat not, just any loony who could get a musket., let alone an ar15.

That is incorrect. Anyone who wanted to buy one, was allowed to buy one.


montereyjack wrote:
for two centuries, that's the way the 2a was read, until right wing wackos and the nra packed scotus and reinterpreted it to suit the mass murder prone among us.

That is incorrect. The was no reinterpretation. The Supreme Court has always ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example.

All the 2008 Heller ruling did was begin to enforce part of the Second Amendment. No part of their ruling suits anyone who is prone to mass murder.


montereyjack wrote:
it never meant or was meant to mean what all the gun loonies insist fallalkciously it was.

That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms has always been held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia. Further, people have always had the right to use their guns for private self defense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:31 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
"Puny"? What's "puny" about a 30-06, a 12 gauge shotgun, or a .357 revolver?

This is the first I've hear you write about them. Perhaps you should be more clear at the outset what you mean.


hightor wrote:
Why would a civilian need battlefield weapons?

What does need have to do with anything??

Existing restrictions have successfully prevented "battlefield weapons legally owned by civilians" from ever being used to commit a crime.

Clearly there is no need for tighter restrictions on battlefield weapons that are legally owned by civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:58 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The RELEVANT stat is the 20,000 or so people every year who use largely legally acquired guns to commit killings that are in no way related to self or family protection or home defense,

How is that stat relevant to anything? Murder victims would be just as dead if they were killed by some other kind of weapon.


MontereyJack wrote:
self or family protection or home defense, ie. used in now ay justified by the NRA-inspired scotus judicial activist reinterpretation of the second amendment,,

No such reinterpretation. People have always had the right to use their guns for private self defense.

All the Supreme Court did was uphold the Constitution. That is hardly judicial activism.


MontereyJack wrote:
Guns were inescapably invented to kill. That is their purpose,

That is incorrect. Some guns are used for protection. Other guns are used for recreation. Neither has killing as their purpose.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 10:59 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
But when I look at deaths by non-military gun violence in this country the federal government lags way behind in the body count. The government hasn't killed kids in classrooms or sprayed hi-vel ammo into nightclubs. It hasn't conducted drive-by shootings. It hasn't marketed assault-style weapons to teens and mentally disturbed people.

What about the deaths that were inflicted on the Confederacy during the Civil War?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Tue 12 Jul, 2022 11:00 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Good. Add assault weapons to your list.

Request denied. Existing regulations have proven sufficient for preventing "assault weapons legally owned by civilians" from ever being used to commit a crime.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Texas Creating Its Own Gold-Based Currency - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas to legalize marijuana? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas' Problems - Discussion by edgarblythe
Texas schools -- is this normal? - Question by boomerang
Stars and Bars; How Long, O Lord? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks - Discussion by edgarblythe
Dallas, Texas - Discussion by Thomas
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 12/10/2024 at 07:12:33